Revision as of 12:15, 19 January 2013

Imladris?

Is there evidence that Celeborn once ruled Imladris? That info was added by Linathiel. ~ Earendilyon 03:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

It is not specifically stated, only that he dwelt there, if memeory serves me. -- Ederchil 03:48, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Celeborn never ruled Imladris. He dwelt there for some time during the second age, he again went to live there after Galadriel had sailed away into the West.--Legolas 10:29, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Legolas, Imladris was founded by Elrond, sent by Gil-galad, and ruled by him ever since, until he passed overseas. It is never stated who ruled Imladris after that, one may suppose that his sons, who remained there for a time, did so, though Celeborn was of course their senior, in years, status and powers. But he had no inherent authority in Imladris, that was a Noldorin settlement under the High King and his lieutenant(s). -- Mithrennaith 19:58, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Opening sentence and infobox

I know that this whole article should just be re-written, but in the mean time we should avoid making such bold statements of objectivity in the opening sentences. Under our new canon policy we can only really say that he was an elf of unknown/disputed origins who married Galadriel and lived for a time in Lórien. My main reason for prompting this discussion is because even using the Teleri infobox is a conscious judgement on our part. Do we have a generic Elf infobox?-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We currently don't have a generic elf infobox, but we should have on for situations like this. --Amroth 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

I believe the information from the published versions must come always first and the unpublished information from Tolkien's notes should be stated as alternatives (as in Controversy) later date or not. Therefore, Celeborn of Doriath, kinsman of Thingol should be 'accepted' as canon (for it is in the published books) and added to the main article and Celeborn of Alqualonde should be in the Controversy section. I don't understand the purpose behind this, making it so is misleading since Celeborn of Aman (Falmari) is a whole alternate history not only concerning him but Galadriel and the history of Lorien. And then Amroth must be accepted as their son as well. Besides, C. Tolkien suggests in Unfinished Tales, that the first original scenario (Celeborn and Galadriel meeting in Doriath) should be the 'right' version.

In the matter of the Silmarillion, the "published version" is not a choice by Tolkien but a posthumous product and contains interpretations by Christopher. As such, the Silmarillion as a "published version" doesn't hold any more authority than portions of UT or HoMe. In some points TG has accepted the later history, such as the early death of Amras and Gil-galad's parentage. I am not justifying it, just giving some explanation. Sage 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I am not against the content itself, but the order of it. It is even clearly stated in the controversy section that the widely accepted version is the one in the Silmarillion yet the main article still presents the alternative version as the accepted one. Since there's a dispute over this part, the alternative content in the main article should be moved to Controversy section, and the version of Celeborn from the Silmarillion should be presented as the primary one. A swap in the order of the content is my suggestion. Amaranth 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And I understand you didn't speak about removal of content but what we accept as primary content. That's what I talked about and our logic here. In Amras we accept his early death and we have a section about his (almost nonexistent) role in the published Silmarillion. In Gil-galad we accept Orodreth as his parent and include a section discussing his connection to Fingon in the published Silmarillion. We disregard that Tolkien didn't have a time to develop his legendarium according to his newer ideas but we accept them nonetheless. It seems that Celeborn follows the same pattern. The case of Celeborn is somewhat different as CT seems to have a preference to the earlier version. Can you quote his reasoning? Sage 19:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue which version is canon; "1. It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not. - Tolkien Gateway canon policy "

So you can't tell me 'we accept A or B as canon' according to this policy. I'm not trying to do that either. But I do not wish make this a personal debate, so that's not my point. My point is the right order of the content presented in the articles, disputable content from from later sources that my contain any inconsistency with the earlier versions should fall under their own category, not the other way around. This is to avoid confusion and inconsistency between versions. It's not suggesting which is more canon or the removal of the content from any other version. After reading The Silmarillion this article would confuse me unless I read HoME and UT.

On the other hand, the making of Celeborn into a Telerin Elf of Aman contradicts not only statements in The Silmarillion, but also those cited already (p. 228) from The Road Goes Ever On and Appendix B to The Lord of the Rings [...] - C.Tolkien, Unfinished Tales

Since we can't decide which one is more canon, I think these content should be under a category (as in the example of many other character articles) such as "Other Versions of the Legendarium."

Unfinished Tales consists of essays and stories composed after The Lord of the Rings which were generally consistent with The Lord of the Rings. The book reveals parallel traditions regarding the history of Galadriel and Celeborn, the nature of the Istari, and a few minor sub-plots. Although some people argue that the book is generally acceptable as canon, readers must bear in mind the fact that no true consistency exists between these unfinished tales and the earlier works. -TG 'Canon'

If we put these seperate contents in the same category throughout all other articles that have disputable backgrounds I believe this would make them clearer (and better organized) for all readers. --Amaranth 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)